IT Employment

Our forums are currently in maintenance mode and the ability to post is disabled. We will be back up and running as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

General discussion


Where are the jobs for Americans?

By AV . ·
I've been reading for months in all of the trade journals that Microsoft is discontinuing Windows NT server support at the end of 2004. Many companies are planning on moving to Windows 2003 and Exchange 2003. Why don't we see companies hiring people to do the work?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by GuruOfDos In reply to Where are the jobs for Am ...

The same people using NT4 now used to be on 3.51

XP users have progressed to XP from 98 or whatever. The world moves on, people move on with it. All the Windows3.11 experts aren't unemployed are they? They moved with the times to 9x and beyond. If the Americans can't adapt, then all the jobs will go to those who CAN adapt, and that's the way it should be. If you are NT4 and that's your be-all and end-all, and you KNOW that NT4 is being discontinued, you have two choices...move on, or die with it.

There are many companies, especially in Europe that are NOT going to move on. Enough is enough, they say. Stick with what works and what they know, in which case their current support staff will continue in work.

Collapse -

Technology Evolution

by Oldefar In reply to Where are the jobs for Am ...

Keep in mind that this is an international forum, and using a country reference in a question open up a lot of tangent discussion threads.

Advancements in software and hardware do not generate new jobs except to the degree that they expand markets. Market penetration in the developed countries is so deep that we don't see a surge in new positions from new market space very often. Advancements also tend to reduce the amount of labor required for a given base, so there is actually downward pressure on support employment with each new release. No new markets and the downward pressure equals a shrinking job market.

A global economy and a global communications network, coupled with increased capability for remote support, makes it easy to move the available support jobs off shore in search of lower labor costs. Keep in mind that while it may have taken the developed countries 60 years to push technology to this point, the knowledge required to support it can be taught anywhere to a literate workforce. In 1960, only about 200 simultaneous overseas calls were possible on the existing infrastructure. Today millions are made at a fraction of the cost of calls 40 years ago.

The jobs that have some security within the borders of any country are those that either are artificially protected by that country, or those that require site presence to be accomplished. The first are typically a short term fix and long term recipe for global market share loss and higher prices unless the protection is related to military capability. The latter always face pressure from better technology.

The UK is looking at whether a legislated ratio between CEO compensation and employee compensation might help slow job off shoring. The average ratio is somewhere around 80 to 1 from what I have read. In the US, ratios of 500 to 1 are not uncommon. However, can greed be legislated away? These ratios are not related to wealth based on entrepreneurship, but to salaries of senior management of public companies.

Collapse -

Moving, not changing

by TheChas In reply to Where are the jobs for Am ...

US companies are not hiring a lot of IT people because there will not be a MASS migration to W2003.

Very few companies will be upgrading existing PCs from NT to W2003.
(Most PCs with NT on them will not run W2003 at all anyway.)

The migration will occur as equipment is replaced.

Keep in mind that most systems with NT on them are nearing both the 3 and 5 year depreciation periods.

If any major changes are made, it will be on the network servers where extra help may be needed.

Another issue is IT out-sourcing.
Companies are not apt to hire extra staff for a chang-over project, they will simply contract with an outside firm that bids low on performing the task.


Collapse -

And in the military...

by GuruOfDos In reply to Moving, not changing

Always remember that YOUR weapons and equipment were provided by the lowest bidder!

Collapse -

Valid points but topic is missed

by Oz_Media In reply to Where are the jobs for Am ...

The market change is gradual as some have said. The bottom line here is you're not seeing an influx of work.
My question to you is, where do you EXPECT to see an increase in jobs? The paper, recruiters, companies phonig you or what?

Perhapse, just speculation here, with the constant onslught of new MCSE's each week or so, do you not think that many employers have more resumes than they will EVER review? Perhaps these companies don't need new applicants.

I think it is all in the timing, right place at the right time. Just keep hammering the doors and making a case as to why they should upgrade, how much you can help them save and why they should hire you to do it. You ever met a passive saleman that's successful? How can a passive tech succeed in an inundated market?

Collapse -

by AV . In reply to Valid points but topic is ...

I expect to see an increase in network admin, network engineers, desktop support. A general increase in demand for (on-site) people.

I realize your resume might be one of 800, but recruiters should at least be calling if you are an experienced IT pro that meets their criteria.

Many of the American tech people I know have the credentials, talent and ability to be an asset to any company - yet they have no opportunities.

Its not because they are passive or not good sales people, its because all of the jobs that can be outsourced cheaper are going to other countries.

Collapse -

And perhaps

by GuruOfDos In reply to

>>its because all of the jobs that can be outsourced cheaper are going to other countries<<

In that case, don't Americans ever wonder if they are demanding too much money for the same job, so they can maintain their materialistic lifestyles?

There are two garages near me who specialise in servicing my make of car. One is part of a national chain, the other is a 'one man and his dog' independant.

Both do exactly the same job, and use the same parts, but the big garage wants to charge me nearly twice the price of the small one. Whatever price I pay, the quality of work and parts fitted is identical. So where is my incentive to go to the big garage? I don't get any 'added value'. Even the warranty on the parts and work is better than the cheaper one.

Why is the franchised garage more expensive? Corporate overalls, shiny offices above the workshop, big flash sign, nationwide TV and radio advertising. The directors all have six digit salaries and P.A.s. The invoices and paperwork are all multi-colour glossy jobs and every six months they mail out a glossy brochure and a reminder that your service or M.O.T. test is due again!

If they were to drop all the 'niceties' and just charge for the job, they'd be as competitive as the cheaper place.

It's the same with outsourcing. We have certain items manufactured outside. All our welding and fabrication is done externally. We obviously wanted the best value for money, so we found a competent three-man fabricating outfit that do a fantastic job at a reasonable price. There were other firms as competent, but they wanted more money. They didn't get our business.

When the American workforce realise that to compete in the global marketplace they have to be competitive, and that money no longer grows on trees, maybe the decline in opportunities will slow down. The opportunities for work are endless...and cheaper labour is cashing in!

A friend of mine does short-term contract work. Because five years ago he had a contract that paid ?32 an hour, he now demands no less than ?35 an hour. He is very lucky to get six months work a year. The typical rate of pay in their industry nationally is around ?18 an hour. One of his ex-colleagues only asks for ?15 an hour (US$24) and he is employed all year round and is often asked to work overtime. Needless to say, he is the wealthier of the two. Sometimes, lowering expectations can lead to greater rewards.

Collapse -

Yes but

by Oldefar In reply to And perhaps

At the core you are right. At some point wages will have to balance across the world, and those in developed nations will see a significant loss of income.

However, the issue today is not about an American worker asking for too high a wage. The unemployed are not turning down work because the compensation is too low. They are seeking and NOT finding openings. This is true in a number of veritcals including product manufacturing, IT, textiles, and chemical manufacturing.

Now what would it take to get some of these jobs back? Today the wage difference with India is a factor of 10. For an American worker to compete on wages, a $50K worker would have to accept $5K a year instead. This is less than half of the minimum legal wage in the US.

Of course, the unemployed worker could look for other work. Sorry, but you are overskilled, over qualified, and we expect you will leave as soon as something better comes along. If you are over 40, age discrimination comes into play even though illegal.

That other work is typically fueled by what? The wants and needs of those skilled and well paid workers from manufacturing and IT industries. Oops. Those workers are now unemployed so demand in work to supply their wants and needs is down.

Still, it must be the workers fault. Now about the senior management responsible for off shoring that work. Average compensation in the UK is 80:1, so an adjustment to 20:1 allows 60 workers to stay employed for each member of the senior management. In the US, average is probably higher so double the jobs saved at no cost increase. Of course, those senior managers prefer to watch out for their own hide and they do get bonuses for all those costs they saved.

Now there are some other advantages to moving off shore. Better tax breaks, for instance. Fewer regulations on work place safety. Less problems meeting environmental standards.

Short term, the big stock holders and the senior management reap big rewards. After 3 or 4 years, some judicious movement of capital out of their company stocks and into more secure holdings, and a global collapse won't really hurt them.

Long term, the developed countries receive no kudos for those jobs they moved over. Instead, we are remembered for the dangerous working conditions and environmental damage caused. The blame gets tossed at the home country, not the greedy few who were responsible.

Collapse -

and it gets worse

by Oldefar In reply to Yes but

Those jobs that get moved off shore initially raise the standards for the workers there. At a minimum they have a higher wage.

The problem is that those wages are supported by consumption. In many instances, that consumption was discretionary and created by the higher standards of living in the developed countries. As those economies suffer, the new job holders will see demand for their work drop off as well.

The wealth becomes even more concentrated in the hands of a very few, not less concentrated, because the difference in wages is going into the pockets of the majority stock holders.

Take one of the 400 richest, say one of the 5 who inherited a 20% share of Wal-Mart when Sam Walton died. They each have $20.5B now. If their wealth were static and they spent $1M each day, it would take over 56 years to see that money return to the economy. Maybe they could each hire 20 IT workers a day for a one year gig?

Collapse -

but it gets better, too

by Oldefar In reply to and it gets worse

The change is income offers some fantastic new opportunities. Low cost housing will get a boost. Home energy generation will become necessary. Mass transit gains can be expected, or a move to lower cost transportation like motorcycles or scooters.

Many have forgotten how to grow their own food. Millions will again learn that two things money can't but is true love and home grown tomatoes! This opens up markets for compact gardens and greenhouses.

Water convservation will become routine, perhaps with a new market for cisterns and home water purification.

Overall, each individual in the developed countries will learn by necessity to have a smaller impact on the planet. With luck, these lessons will quickly move to the developing countries as well and we will all be better off.

Science and technology will result in more innovations and a better quality of life for eveyone, but probably not along the path we have taken to date.

Personally I am optimistic for the long haul. In 1970, we couldn't have these discussions at all. Today, we share thoughts world wide. At the very least I think we are all finding out how much more we are alike than different.

Related Discussions

Related Forums